‘Paper street’ sale clouds man’s dream for Schenectady property

Back in 1972, the little lot that Michael Serafini bought on the edge of a growing Schenectady neighborhood seemed full of potential.

It adjoined the backyards of houses he built on Tracy Avenue, nestled in a residential area called Rosa Road Gardens. The property straddled the Schenectady-Niskayuna boundary and was within easy commuting distance of many major employers.

From Serafini’s perspective, a big key to the land’s value was an access route set aside on a ribbon of city-owned land from Golf Avenue to the edge of his lot. Designated as Michael Avenue on maps, the road continued eastward along his property line to Rosa Road in Niskayuna.

Serafini, 88, is retired now and lives in Rexford. He isn’t building houses anymore, but he retains a fondness for the small parcel on the Electric City outskirts.

“Because of my age, I can’t do much, but I would like to give to my children the right to go to my land, build a house in the future or whatever it might be,” said Serafini, whose English is infused with a rich Italian accent.

His aspirations for the property now are steeped in uncertainty, though, because Michael Avenue never advanced beyond a theoretical state.

It remained a “paper street,” meaning it appeared on survey and planning maps, but never was developed. No car ever traveled it, but boots and a weed-whacker could help if you’re on foot.

Permission from the current owners would be a good idea, too.

In 2004, the city sold a strip of Michael Avenue to Augusto DiCarlo, who owns a lot west of Serafini’s, and another portion was acquired at some point by another neighbor, Cesare Maniccia.

Those transactions were devastating to Serafini’s hope that a public street with water and sewer lines would someday link his land to Golf Road.

Nearly seven years later, he says his appeals for Schenectady to declare the sale invalid and take back the land have been ignored, and he is irked that he never had a chance to object to the sale before it occurred.

I sympathize, and I do think the city should have been more responsive to Serafini’s many personal visits, letters and Freedom of Information Law requests.

A written response clearly outlining the city’s position and documenting the history of the land sale would have been a valuable courtesy that could have averted some hard feelings.

But after examining this situation — and I caution that I am not a lawyer and am not offering legal opinions — I think Serafini would have a better chance of success if he stopped fighting City Hall on this point and concentrated, instead, on finding a solution with neighboring property owners.

Where the city is concerned, I think he should turn his attention to contesting an astounding hike in the assessed value (and resulting property taxes) on the city portion of his vacant lot.

The assessment, which was $500 in 2008, leaped to $22,800 in 2009 and dwarfs a $3,800 assessment on a similar-sized neighboring lot.

I’ll get back to that. First, let’s talk about the paper street problem.

When Serafini and his daughter, Toni Serafini, first contacted me, they were frustrated that city lawyers seemed to be dragging their feet in signing off on an agreement that Serafini, DiCarlo and Maniccia reached in December with help from a Center for Community Justice mediator.

It was a major accomplishment for the three men to craft an accord, but city Corporation Counsel L. John Van Norden says the proposed pact included provisions that were deal-killers for the city.

It would have required the city to take back the paper street portions owned by Maniccia and DiCarlo “for the purpose of restoring Michael Avenue as a forever paper street or paved road to be maintained by the city of Schenectady.” It also calls for refunds of taxes paid by the two men.

“If we wanted to create a street, we would not have sold the property. The city doesn’t have the money to put a street in, and the city has no interest in putting a street in,” Van Norden said.

Serafini contends the paper street sale violated state Highway Law. But Van Norden notes that’s an issue for a court to decide, and the time for challenging a government action (probably through an Article 78 action in state Supreme Court) long ago expired.

Van Norden also looked back through city records to confirm that the City Council did, indeed, approve sale of the land as surplus property on May 24, 2004, following a March auction arranged by then-City Engineer and Public Works Commissioner Milt Mitchell.

Unfortunately, Serafini wasn’t directly notified of the proposed sale because, according to city maps, the his lot within Schenectady does not abut the paper street. (The Serafinis say it does.)

It’s little comfort now, of course, but Van Norden notes that this case is a good reminder for property owners to regularly check notices of auctions, zoning changes and other proposals when they are published.

The Serafinis did notice when DiCarlo proposed to build a house on the former paper street. They spoke against the plan at a hearing and the city denied permission.

If he remains committed to keeping his land and restoring the potential access, I think Serafini’s best bet is to go back to the drawing board with DiCarlo and Maniccia and try to craft a new mediated solution: perhaps an easement or some other accommodation that doesn’t directly involve the city.

Meanwhile, Serafini has a couple of choices for dealing with the ridiculously high assessment.

He can continue withholding taxes, as he has started to do, and eventually let the city take the land. Or he can grieve the assessment vigorously — his first effort failed — using a professional appraisal to support his case.

Many Schenectady residents were outraged by assessment hikes after a massive revaluation in 2009, and they filed legal challenges in droves. Last year, the city revamped its grievance process, and that could help property owners reach resolutions sooner without resorting to Small Claims Court.

According to the city web site, the tentative tax roll is to be filed on May 1 and the window for challenges starts then.

10 Responses

I was in a similiar situation where a lot we bought for $300 on Hamilton Hill was assessed at $3000 and the assessor at reassessment time raised it to over $17,000. I went to grievance day and got the usual “insufficient data” even though I had alot of data to support the vacant lot which is too small to build on was not worth that amount. Finally went to small claims and had it reduced but still is assessed much higher than it’s worth. Many homes are also assessed way above market value, I hope everyone that can make it will go to greivance day this year and fight for the right amount.

He took a chance buying a lot on a street that didn’t exist, the City never built the street (as often happens in these cases) and he lost out. Why should anyone be helping him? He is a real estate speculator who made a bad choice.

Serafini didn’t own the land the paper road was on and,as the city said, it’s been long enough that if the city wanted to build a road there, it would’ve.
I can understand its disappointing.
Regarding the assessment, I wish him good luck in suing. I’m not sure what good not paying the taxes will do.

I understand 2 & 3 above, but there is a bigger question that I don’t think was clear in the story. Is the property land locked now that the city sold parts of the ‘paper’ street? I find it hard to believe the city could sell city owned land causing a land locked situation.

I feel that the article seems to suggest that this is a problem between three property owners when the blame should go to the city. The city used poor judgement by selling a public street to a private individual. When I realized that I was land locked, I petitioned the city to give me an access road.
After a long debate, the city gave me the strip of land to access my two lots (30′x100′/each) on Michael Avenue. There was no problem, as long as the city owned the street. It became an issue with me when the mayor of Schenectady on July 1, 2004, sold the street to a private owner. With this act, it landlocked my property. What am I supposed to do? Access my lots with a helicopter? As a result of my concerns, the city made the strip of land available and, in so doing, it provided access to my lots.
Having a warrented deed, I fenced part of the strip and removed it when the zoning board, in approving a project on Michael Avenue, declared that the street should be returned to the original state; a paper street. SO, WHO IS AT FAULT HERE? Who is responsible for this problem? You tell me.

So, Cathy, as a poster asks, is the lot landlocked? If so, then it is of value only to neighboring owners unless there is a possible recourse such as taken by Mr. Maniccia. Mr. Serafini perhaps should look into selling the property to a bordering owner asap. Otherwise, not paying his taxes (#4, thus eventually having the city claim it for tax sale and relieving Mr. Serafini of the burden) may be an option. I wonder what other consequences such action might bring but perhaps Mr. Serafini at his age doesn’t mind.

Thanks Matt.
What I was referring to was is there a law that requires a person have some kind of easement/access in some way to their property?
I’m not a lawyer and I certainly couldn’t find any links to verifiable sources,
but I do recall hearing a few horror stories about landowners forcing other land owners to give them easement to get to their landlocked property.